The Last of the Wall Street Pay Cuts

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Didn't we vote for Obama? Congress hasn't ever had oversight over most of the President's staff. Just because somebody calls them a "Czar" doesn't give these people any power. They are still answerable to the President. That's why it's called the Executive Branch.
Congress has oversight over those members of the Executive to which Congress has ceded rule-making power. That makes sense because they are exercising legislative powers.
This American Life this past weekend had a great program; an ex-Wall Street exec explained how out of touch he had become in the Wall Street culture about what life is like for most Americans. How many nurses, fireman, police officers and teachers do each of these execs think they are worth? Shouldn't we be giving bonuses to the best and the brightest in these professions?
Just because in the past we had vast disparities between the head of Bethlehem Steel or Andrew Carnegie and the lowliest worker does not make it right.
During the Truman and Eisenhower administrations we had an upper tax bracket of 91% because we had to reduce huge debts resulting from the war and the efforts to pull the country out of the Great Depression. It worked, then JFK reduced the tax rate to 71%.
President Bush & the Congress prosecuted a war while giving the rich tax breaks. It ate up all our surplus and put us in debt. Those who reap the most benefits from our society and are in the best position to bear the costs should do their patriotic duty.

pallas_athena2 of MD 10:49PM October 26, 2009

..I took a cut in pay -.- I didn't get a bonus -.- PEOPLE TOOK MY MONEY -.- and now are crying about lost bonuses
WHERE IS MY MONEY ?.? WHERE ARE MY TAX DOLLARS ?.?
...WHERE IS MY PROFIT..
The Last of the Wall Street Pay Cuts
..We are now too advanced -.- and this will happen again.....they should think of the thirteen steps - in a gallows because they crashed at my expense...
Tar & Feathers - and not the cold type of tar, HOT TAR.....
I would like to welcome them to GITMO and all it uses
call it legal rendition - do not call the questioning torture...
YOU STOLE MY MONEY - can we atleast chop off your hands???
..
...It's hard to feel sorry for Madoff's clients - who didn't miss any meals - or really lose anything related to staying alive.....maybe they aren't sitting as high on the ladder now..
...my feeling would not be published - trust that
.
..Pick a state - insanity isn't listed

William Bednarz of NJ 1:52PM October 24, 2009

GET THEM OUT OF GOVERNMENT - VIRTUAL MEETING (Meeting)
at http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/meeting/gpc5tq
When you sign up for this event, you are saying to President Barack Obama - we want you to stop the bankrupting of our country by the large financial institutions, with policies and programs that give them taxpayer money with which they can gamble and make record profits.
We want Geithner, Summers, Bernanke, (Paulsen, Rubin) OUT and we want you to bring honest advocates of reform such as Elizabeth Warren and Brooksley Born IN.
Please watch Frontline's "The Warning" at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/

ReferenDem of DC 9:00AM October 24, 2009

So which is it? Are the new wage control schemes launched by the Pay Czar and the Fed the acts of independent experts, or are they the closely controlled policy decisions of the Obama White House?
The answer to that question goes to the core of the very real constitutional problems that the proliferation of czars in the Obama administration creates. Obama appointed Feinberg to be his Pay Czar without any input from the American people and without any approval from Congress.

Ken of WI 2:40PM October 23, 2009

".....shareholders have always had the ability to object to lavish pay, even when CEOs were raking in packages in excess of $100 million whether their firms prospered or not."
Sounds good. But this is not true! Compensation is determined by the board. And the board, although it is suppose to serve the interests of the owners (shareholders), all too often is in bed with the CEO and serves the interests of the CEO.
Corporate America has moved to a select ruling class, dominated by a few hundred CEOs and board members, who have gained control of the Fortune 500 publicly held companies and use this power to enrich themselves and their buddies at the expense of the shareholders, workers, and public.
We must find a way to create a control system to reasonably contain CEO compensation in the US. It has moved to absurdity. And it is to the detriment of shareholders, workers, and the public at large.
Under present corporate governance, the shareholders may have the right to vote when they receive proxies, but the votes are often rigged. For example, who suggest the candidates for board members? As a shareholder in many US firms, I have grown accustom to throwing away my proxy, because I have come to realize my vote is meaningless. My power as owner has been destroyed by the cozy relationship between CEOs and boards. I challenge anyone to show me a truly independent board of a public company that acts to protect the interests of the shareholders over the CEO's and board member's interests.
Our publicly held corporations will continue to disgrace themselves with outlandish CEO compensation packages until someone finds a way to control the board members. I have often felt that Vanguard and Fidelity have a fiduciary responsibility, as managers of staggering sums of investment dollars, to take a leading role in controlling CEO compensation. But, so far, such leadership has not emerged.
I am generally against government control and/or regulation of such issues. However, continued abuse shall someday lead to federal government control of CEO compensation and boards. That will create an interesting scenario. Greedy politicians controlling greedy businesspeople! What an absurd world we have created for ourselves, boys and girls.
PS - The politicians are even further out of control. Just look at the national debt. And the upward direction of our debt. And the velocity of said debt growth.
As a society, we have been so focused on the fat life that we have effectively left nothing for the next generations. What a shame. A replay of the Roman Empire.

Jim Bower of WA 2:22PM October 23, 2009

We are no longer living in the founding fathers United States of America. We are living in discreetly disguised society that has reverted to nobility, the haves and have nots, where crime pays, especially if one fits into the current nobility class that we have allowed to exist. Congress persons who make more money their constituents and have benefits that the average person does not have, such as pensions, health insurance, and so forth.

Sonya of FL 1:56AM October 23, 2009

This tells the top brass that while they may, indeed, have gotten bailed out, guess what? It's not going to be a pie-in-the-sky payday from now on.
Many are concerned about moral hazard, wherein execs will not exercise as much caution, knowing full well they'll get bailed out. If they want to keep the fat cat salary, though, it behooves them to steer the corporate ship so it doesn't end up in the hands of the government.
This way, government saved the jobs of the employees, the lesser paid folks with kids to support, but at the same time, the top brass watched the pay yet sliced and diced.
Not a bad idea, although I still have no clue why GM deserved a bailout. They simply don't make as great cars anymore; that's their own fault.
But whatever.
After the bailout, they got...a pay cut!
Brilliant idea to rescue/punish the top execs at the same time. Maybe more will try hard not to steer the ship right into the hands of a bailout, knowing it'll mean lower pay. : )

AK of IL 8:53PM October 22, 2009

Much of this trouble stems from the fact that there are professional LOBBYISTS in the pockets and pants of the Members of Congress, and this MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY. I don't care what industry it is -- financial, aerospace, corporate farming, whatever -- there is absolutely no good, sound Constitutional allowance for such influence in Washington, DC.
Our governance in this country is Of the People, For the People, and By the People. By "People" I understood the Founders to mean the voting individuals -- the citizens. The argument will go that corporations are "people" to, but I see it only to the extent that corporations are legal entities and laws must necessarily interact with them in much the same manner as a 'natural" person. Corporations, however, do not vote. Therefore, any influence that they may seek to have at the federal or even a state level must come solely from each citizen.
Get corporate lobbyists out of DC (and statehouses, too) and you will soon see that there will be no more shenanigans as have been witnessed in the past several years. The worst thing a politician can do is pander to a profit-seeking entity. The best thing the politician can do is tell that entity to "go get lost and take your money with you".

bigwally of NJ 3:12PM October 22, 2009